Jarvis

The parties, who were unmarried and had one child, disputed the date of cohabitation, the division of proceeds from a jointly owned home, spousal support, and the return of an engagement ring.

The court found the parties began cohabiting on May 10, 2017, when the applicant was added to the respondent's auto insurance.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust applied to the jointly owned home, dividing the proceeds 73% to the respondent and 27% to the applicant based on their respective contributions.

The applicant was awarded needs-based spousal support, and was permitted to keep the engagement ring or return it for a $14,000 credit.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three children to Cleveland, Ohio, to live with her new spouse.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court considered the children's views and preferences, which strongly favoured the move, alongside the history of the parents' relationship, allegations of family violence, and the mother's restrictive approach to the father's parenting time.

Despite concerns about the mother's willingness to foster the children's relationship with the father, the court found that refusing the relocation would pose a significant risk to the children's best interests given their strong alignment with the mother.

The relocation was permitted, with a detailed parenting plan ordered to ensure the father's ongoing involvement.

The father was also ordered to pay child support, including a significant amount for section 7 expense arrears, while the mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant wife brought a motion to remove the parties' family law arbitrator, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias and unequal treatment under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The wife's complaints stemmed from a series of procedural and costs awards made by the arbitrator during a high-conflict dispute over child support and parenting.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the arbitrator's decisions were balanced and contextually appropriate, and that the wife's dissatisfaction with the outcomes did not meet the extremely high evidentiary threshold required to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant wife brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the respondent husband regarding his personal finances and interests in over twenty companies.

The court ordered the husband to provide the requested disclosure, including a proper financial statement, tax returns, and corporate records, by specified deadlines.

The court dismissed the wife's request for non-party production orders as premature.

The court also ordered the husband to retain a business valuation expert by a set date, failing which it would consider appointing the wife's expert as a court-appointed expert.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a marriage contract signed shortly before the parties' 2004 marriage, arguing the respondent wife failed to make proper financial disclosure of her substantial trust and estate interests and that he did not understand the contract.

The court found the wife had adequately disclosed her net worth, even overestimating it, and that the husband had received independent legal advice and understood the nature and consequences of the agreement.

The court dismissed the application, finding no material misrepresentation, duress, or unconscionability to justify judicial intervention under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought sole custody of their five-year-old child.

The father had taken the child from the mother's care following a period where the mother struggled with substance abuse.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended sole custody to the mother, noting her successful rehabilitation, stable housing, and the father's failure to facilitate access.

The court agreed, awarding sole custody to the mother and granting the father specified access.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the intentionally unemployed father and ordered him to pay child support.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The mother sought sole custody of their two children, while the father sought joint custody and shared parenting.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate and cooperate ruled out joint custody or parallel parenting.

The mother was granted sole custody and final decision-making authority, as she had demonstrated a more child-focused approach to the children's medical and academic needs.

The father's access was expanded to include more meaningful time, and he was ordered to pay child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The parties brought cross-motions to vary and enforce temporary child and spousal support orders.

The husband, who had recently lost his employment, sought to reduce his support obligations and access $20,000 from the matrimonial home sale proceeds held in trust.

The wife sought enforcement of the existing orders and further financial disclosure.

The court recalculated the husband's retroactive support obligations based on his actual income, declined to impute employment income to the wife, and ordered $33,384 to be released from the trust funds to the wife to satisfy the husband's support arrears.

The husband was also ordered to pay ongoing support based on his current Employment Insurance income and to provide further disclosure.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have two children found in need of protection and made Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother consented to the finding that the children were in need of protection.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the disposition of Crown wardship, given the mother's history of transience, substance abuse, and inability to adequately care for the children.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the mother should have access to the children, noting her recent rehabilitation efforts and the children's attachment to her.

The motion was granted in part, with Crown wardship ordered and a trial directed on the issue of access.

The applicant sought costs of over $1 million and pre-judgment interest following a complex 19-day family law trial where she was largely successful.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full recovery costs based on bad faith, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not reaching the threshold of bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $936,625 in costs and $195,000 in pre-judgment interest, noting the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct increased the complexity and length of the proceedings.

The respondent in the main action brought a motion for temporary spousal support and further financial disclosure.

The applicant opposed, arguing the parties were never spouses under the Family Law Act and that a previous $60,000 payment satisfied any obligation.

The court found the moving party established a prima facie case for support based on her residency in the responding party's home and financial dependence.

The court ordered the responding party to pay $1,600 monthly in temporary support based on an acknowledged income of $134,000.

On the disclosure issue, the court gave the responding party 30 days to engage an expert income analyst before mandating the extensive corporate disclosure requested.

The parties separated after a long marriage involving multiple relocations between Latvia and Canada.

The husband sought equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The wife argued that a marriage contract signed in Latvia excluded her property from equalization.

The court found that while a marriage contract existed, its language did not explicitly or implicitly exclude the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act.

The court valued the parties' foreign and domestic assets, ordering the wife to pay an equalization payment of $71,633.50 in installments.

The wife was granted sole custody of the youngest child, and the husband was ordered to pay $174 monthly in child support based on an imputed minimum wage income.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a 2008 separation agreement, alleging the respondent husband deliberately misrepresented the value of his business interests at the date of marriage to eliminate his equalization payment obligation.

The court found the husband, an astute investor, intentionally failed to disclose that the market value of his holding company's investments was significantly lower than the book value he presented.

The separation agreement was set aside under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the parties' net family properties, finding the husband's date of marriage business value was nil, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $1,055,758.

The court also awarded retroactive child support of $345,000 and compensatory spousal support of $475,000, imputing significant corporate pre-tax income to the husband.

The applicant wife moved to strike the respondent husband's pleadings for failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The husband brought a cross-motion for leave to file his Answer late, claiming a cognitive disability caused his delay, though he provided no credible medical evidence.

The court found the husband had made significant but incomplete disclosure.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the caution against striking pleadings in family law cases involving continuing obligations, the court granted the husband's motion for leave to file his Answer on strict terms and adjourned the wife's motion to strike.